redm-get-oxmysql-docs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it returns formatted documentation, raw text, links; if it's cached or real-time; any rate limits; or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get oxmysql documentation') and specifies the domain ('for database operations'). Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a documentation retrieval tool. It doesn't specify what format the documentation is returned in (e.g., markdown, HTML, structured JSON), how comprehensive it is, or if there are any scoping limitations. With no structured fields to rely on, the description should provide more context about the output and behavior to be fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it could mention if there are implicit inputs (e.g., version filtering). Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description adequately covers the lack of inputs without misleading the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('oxmysql documentation for database operations'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'redm-get-rsgcore-docs' or 'redm-get-vorp-docs', which appear to be similar documentation retrieval tools for different frameworks. A perfect score would require clarifying what makes oxmysql documentation distinct from other framework docs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'redm-get-rsgcore-docs' or 'redm-search-framework-docs'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for when oxmysql documentation is needed, or what scenarios warrant this specific retrieval. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.